Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
PNG
media_image1.png
607
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
855
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
584
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:\
The examiner disagrees. Initially the examiner notes applicant’s own disclosure which states:
PNG
media_image4.png
225
645
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The examiner had rejected claims 3, 10, 13 and 20, regarding the cameras being an around view camera and a driver monitoring system camera, by incorporating Cordell, which discloses (para 54,125) performing calibration between an interior vehicle camera and an exterior vehicle camera via position and orientation.
Thus the examiners position is one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if a vehicle had interior and exterior cameras, their joint calibration would ensure a safe vehicle operation, being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Based upon the combination of prior art used in the rejection, it is known to calibrate cameras by using field of views that partially overlaps in order to measure/calibrate common points in order to determine their values with respect to different cameras, which enables the cameras to be calibrated.
As shown in Fig 2 of the invention, the first camera 111 includes calibration (FOV) 140 being a around view camera as well as camera 130 (which is also around view camera) which also captures portion of 111 (1st camera FOV) as well as the 2nd (driver monitor cameras) 120/calibration 150. This supports the examiner’s positions that by including any overlapping FOVs between cameras, the cameras can be calibrated, whether inside cabin camera or outside external camera.
In the event the applicant deems unexpected results are obtained by such arrangement the examiner suggest clarifying such IAW MPEP 716.02(d), since based upon the prior art, the results of using different cameras in a calibration system provided predictable/expected results.
As noted in MPEP 2141:
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton ."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle ."Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ "Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396
Thus as noted in the rejection, the combination teaches that exterior cameras and internal vehicle cameras can be calibrated together, thus the arrangement of what FOV a particular camera takes on including overlapping regions between cameras are performed by the prior art and thus the selection of camera(s)/FOV’s would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 11, 12, 15-16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAKANO et al., US 20160275683 in view Syed, US 20210035328 in view of Cordell, US 20200254876.
In considering claim 1,
PNG
media_image5.png
685
692
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
144
642
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Sakano discloses a system which includes four cameras (front 102a, left (102c), right (102d) and rear (102b). The first and second cameras are met by left (102c) and right (102d) cameras respectively. Each cameras has it’s own field of view(FOV)(Fig 1) where the front (102a) and rear (102b) partially overlap the FOV’s of the left camera 102c and right (102(b)) cameras as shown.
Second camera…(102(b)
Third camera…(102a or 102b)
First calibration board (101d) (for 102b and 102c) and 101b for cameras 102a and 102c
Second calibration board (101c) for (102b and 102d) and 101a for cameras 102d and 102a.
Processing unit is met by in-vehicle device 100 (para 25-27Fig 1
g/h/i) each camera captures an image (via image acquiring unit 103 Fig 3) of vehicle device 100, where the first camera 102c captures a first image including boards 101d and 101b, the second cameras102d captures boards 101c and 101a, and wherein the third camera (102a or 102b) captures boards 101b/a or 101/3/c as shown (Fig 1).
PNG
media_image7.png
513
508
media_image7.png
Greyscale
j) the processing unit to calculate…any difference/misalignment between cameras is calculated in order to ensure overhead (360, bird’s eye view image) is correct (full coverage). (para 05, 36-37, 40-42, 45, 49-50, 54-61, 68-82, 86, 89-90, 91, 93-102, 105-112, 114, 153-154, 160, 162, 175-180, 183, 186).
The examiner notes SAKANO does not explicitly recite the calculation of the difference between the cameras explicitly, although does disclose aligning the cameras in general to the markers/world coordinate system.
The examiner evidences Syed which disclose a vehicle camera calibration system using markers which explicitly recites calculating the different parameters (para 7, 9, 13, 18, 20, 22 40, 42, 44, 49, 50, 53, 55, 58 and 60) including position and/orientation (angle) between cameras to ensure proper coverage of the captured surroundings (para 15).
The motivation to modify SAKANO with Syed would provide the ability to ensure the vehicle cameras were properly aligned/orientated to ensure a proper coverage of the vehicle, since it is known that vehicles cameras may move/shift/position/orientation from being in operation and thus ensuring calibration/proper coverage ensures a safe vehicle operation thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding the newly amended features (from previous claim 3, now cancelled)
The examiner notes the combination of SAKANO/Syed discloses an around view monitor camera system and does not disclose a driver monitoring system camera.
The examiner incorporates Cordell which discloses that interior (driver monitoring camera(s) and exterior vehicle cameras (Fig 2c) can be calibrated and correlated together which aids in the alignment between the user direction/attention and the captured scene viewable to user (para 54, 125)
The motivation to modify SAKANO with Cordell would provide the advantage(s) as noted above, notably to ensure the driver’s direction/attention camera and the exterior camera(s) were calibrated together to ensure a proper viewable scene, and thus ensure safe operation of the vehicle and it’s surroundings, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 2,
As noted the first camera (left camera 102c) includes a different field of view (202c) then 2nd camera (102d) which includes FOV 202d (Fig 1).
In considering claim 5,
The camera coordinate system (2) is correlated to the real world coordinate system (3D) of the markers, where the markers are installed on the ground (z=0) (para 60-87).
In considering claim 6,
As noted above with SAKANO, the marker coordinate system represents a global coordinate system (3D, x, y, z) para 61.
The above noted Syed was incorporated for explicitly teaching of finding difference parameters (position and/or orientation/angle) between cameras and determining the difference in viewing area (angles) between the cameras ((para 44, 46).
The motivation to incorporates the teachings of SYED with SAKANO ensure the cameras of the vehicle provide full coverage of the vehicle surroundings with respect to the real world (3D system) thus ensuring a safe vehicle operation, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Additionally, Cordell discloses the calibration of internal and external cameras, thus the combination above performs the claimed limitations to ensure proper calibration of vehicles cameras, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 11,
Refer to claim 1.
In considering claim 12,
Refer to claim 2.
In considering claim 15,
Refer to claim 5.
, In considering claim 21,
Refer to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-9, 14 and 17-19 and objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The examiner notes the prior art of record does not disclose/teach the additional features/limitations as recited in the objected to claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Yenke whose telephone number is (571)272-7359. The examiner work schedule is Monday-Thursday, 0730-1830 hrs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, John Miller, can be reached at (571)272-7353.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to:
(571)-273-8300
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is
(703)305-HELP.
General information about patents, trademarks, products and services offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other related information is available by contacting the USPTO’s General Information Services Division at:
800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP
(FAX) 703-305-7786
(TDD) 703-305-7785
An automated message system is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day providing informational responses to frequently asked questions and the ability to order certain documents. Customer service representatives are available to answer questions, send materials or connect customers with other offices of the USPTO from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00p.m. EST/EDT, Monday-Friday excluding federal holidays.
For other technical patent information needs, the Patent Assistance Center can be reached through customer service representatives at the above numbers, Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT.
The Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) allows USPTO customers to retrieve data, check the status of pending actions, and submit information and applications. The tools currently available in the Patent EBC are Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and the Electronic Filing System (EFS). PAIR (http://pair.uspto.gov) provides customers direct secure access to their own patent application status information, as well as to general patent information publicly available. EFS allows customers to electronically file patent application documents securely via the Internet. EFS is a system for submitting new utility patent applications and pre-grant publication submissions in electronic publication-ready form. EFS includes software to help customers prepare submissions in extensible Markup Language (XML) format and to assemble the various parts of the application as an electronic submission package. EFS also allows the submission of Computer Readable Format (CRF) sequence listings for pending biotechnology patent applications, which were filed in paper form.
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights